As the Iranian government has severely restricted any and all press coverage of the massive protests following its June 12 presidential election, the international community has been hard pressed for related information from its traditional sources.

With more than two-dozen Iranian journalists jailed since the election and media restrictions officially in play, news agencies outside of Iran have been scrambling to adapt to the sudden dearth of trusted information, while still attempting to enlighten the world as to the goings-on in the streets.

These organizations are facing difficult decisions, said Hans Ibold, a professor at the Indiana University School of Journalism who has experience reporting abroad. In an email, Ibold explained a simplified version of the dilemma in front of the media.

“There is no sense in keeping a reporter in Tehran when authorities threaten them or ask them to sign contracts holding them to positive coverage, as is being reported by several agencies,” he said. “The course of action is to use other methods, such as social media, to get the story out.”

CNN has taken the reigns in the social media department after being subject to intense criticism of its initial lack of coverage of the election controversy. Now the network is regularly using updates from (apparently) Iranian sources on sites such as Twitter and Facebook to report on the protests.

As a result of this reliance on social media, CNN has been forced to use unverifiable accounts of the scenes on the streets, a considerable jump from the tactics of some other networks, who are sticking to interviewing “experts.”

Josh Friedman, the director of International Programs and a professor at Columbia University’s Journalism School, explained the divide in coverage strategies as one between “good” and “bad” journalism.

“Bad journalism is on Fox,” he said. “[There,] you have two or three experts that are blabbing away, and they’re not experts.” On the other hand, he continued, “I’m really impressed with CNN’s attempt to exploit the digital sources.” Still, he emphasized the importance of the latter’s pointing out that its sources and updates may not be the truth. Thus far, he said, CNN has done this admirably.

But even though CNN seems to be doing the very basic work of a reporter – relaying the news, and acknowledging its potential lack of veracity – Ibold noted that this brand of journalism remains hazardous, at least for now.

“This kind of reporting is both exciting and risky,” he explained. “My belief is that if more and more people use social media to tell their stories, then it will be easier for reporters and editors to confirm the reports and get us closer to the truth.”

For now, though, this sentiment appears idealist, and not applicable to Iran’s current protests. The world of Twitter and its colleagues is growing, but it is not by any means all encompassing, and experts acknowledge that even CNN’s approach is far from the ultimate solution to a wide problem.

Citing the perils created by a lagging economy and an unprecedentedly unfavorable market for newspapers and other publications, Friedman said that he thinks social media reporting may be a step in the right direction, but that even the most voracious tweeter cannot adequately replace an on-scene correspondent.

Still, he does seem to think there is hope. “It really shows that there is a cheaper way to get information, if you can just bring it up to the standards of traditional journalism,” he said. “It’s fascinating.”

Popularity: 1% [?]